Leadership and followership in post 1992 university business schools in england

461

Chapter 18

Leadership and Followership
in Post-1992 University
Business Schools in England
Thomas Charles Bisschoff
University of Birmingham, UK
Michael Lewis Nieto
Regent’s University London, UK

ABSTRACT
The research reflects on how academics interact as leaders and followers in Post-1992 University Business
Schools. The study was cognisant of the tensions experienced by knowledge workers, such as academics,
whereby a person may have leadership responsibilities, whilst working within as a collegiate environment. The research explores leadership through qualitative methodology and constructivist discourse
within three cases studies. The selection of case studies included two business schools which had experienced numerous restructures and one where the management team was more stable. The key outcomes
of the research indicate that the respondents are dissatisfied by their leaders and reported an absence
of consultation as well as almost yearly disruptive restructuring. Consequently, the research reported
minimal followership or distributed leadership. Instead, disengagement was reported by academics in
both management and non-management posts. In two of the business schools, successive sets of new
externally hired management teams had imposed reorganisations and redundancies. Consequently,
academics expressed disengagement and reported systemic failures to develop and promote internal
candidates to senior management and departmental leadership posts.

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this research was to evaluate what leadership and followership means in a contemporary
English Post-1992 University Business School context. The research thereby considered leadership and
followership, at a time when some of the post 1992 business schools are addressing challenging changes
in their organisational environment, which surfaced interesting questions as to what it means to be a
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch018

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

leader or follower in higher education context (Bisschoff & Watts 2013; Bolden et al 2014; Chreim, 2014;
Mabey & Morrell 2011; Nieto, 2014). For example, the respondents’ reported perception was that many
of them were facing complex situations, unknown and challenging problems, such as those described
by Grint (2008, p16) as a ‘wicked situation’. However, the respondents reported that the functionalist
management they were working within was unsuited to the new organisational leadership requirements
(Alvesson & Sveningsson 2003). Accordingly, the respondents’ perceptions of leadership and followership in their workplaces contributed a rich source of new material on leadership and followership within
contemporary knowledge worker environments.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF POST 1992 UNIVERSITIES
The post 1992 universities came into being as a result of a government policy to expand higher education.
Accordingly, the Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 almost doubled the number of universities
to eighty-four. The Education Reform Act of 1988 abolished the University Grants Committee (UGC).
According to Anderson in Withers (2009) the changes introduced by both the 1988 Act and the White
Paper of 1986, encouraged more managerial control into the newly formed universities.
In 2015, the post 1992 universities are part of a diverse range of institutions engaged in higher education provision; a list of the post 1992 universities is provided in appendix 1. By way of contextualising
the growth of university providers, in the nineteenth century England had just two universities, until
the creation of the university of London, in 1886. The next set of universities to be formed was referred
to as the Red brick universities because of their city locations. The red brick universities came into being during the 1900s, the first of which was the University of Birmingham. It then took several more
decades before the next group, which were referred to as the plate glass universities, were established in
the 1960s (Robbins Report 1963). The post 1992 universities arrived in the 1990s followed by another
smaller group of new universities in the early 2000s (Marginson, 2006).
Most recently, the new additions to the university sector have come from the private sector, namely
BPP and Regent’s University London in 2013. These new entrants tend, on balance, to be more teaching

orientated, although they do engage in organisational research studies and have active connections with
the business sector and professional chartered bodies. However, they are different from the state funded
universities in that they depend directly on student fees and commercial income instead of state funding.
Conversely, the post 1992 universities are dependent upon state funding and for the most part, have fewer
financial contributions from research than the older HE institutions (Dearing Report, 1997; Hefce Report
2014; Hefce Report 2014; Morgan 2015; Morgan & Newman, 2010; Newman 2010; Shepherd 2010).
According to the research data gathered for the Hefce Report (2014), the changes which may influence student participation levels, such as the increase in tuition fees, have had impacted variably on
different segments of the sector.
‘Declines of more than 10 per cent were seen at 28 higher education institutions and 17 further education colleges. The majority of the higher education institutions experiencing these levels of decline were
ones where entrants had low or medium average tariff scores. The overall increase in further education
colleges reflects broader shifts away from provision franchised from HEIs, with colleges now offering
more higher education directly.’ Hefce Report (2014 pp. 90-121. (Source: Analysis of the HESA standard
registration population at English HEIs, 2005-06 to 2012-13).

462



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Reversals of Fortune
The New Labour government of 1997 had heralded a transformation in student university participation
and funding to include a higher proportion of school leavers into post-eighteen education (The Dearing
Report, National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997: Higher Education in the Learning
Society). The then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, asserted that the government would prioritise education
and increase the sector’s funding (Coughlan, 2007). Accordingly, the 1997 New Labour government’s plan
for higher education was to transform student participation levels, so that universities would eventually
accept fifty per cent of school leavers (The Dearing Report, National Committee of Inquiry into Higher
Education, 1997). To place this within an historical context, participation rates in the mid-twentieth
century had been below ten per cent of the school leaver population. The universities therefore received

additional funding from government in order to expand the number of places they could offer to students.
The improvements in funding for education lifted levels in the United Kingdom to a comparable
average with other leading nations. For example, the expanded education expenditure of the 1990s and
early 2000s took the budget to 5.6% of GDP, which compares to the current average for education GDP
in the other industrialised countries (Coughlan 2007; Henkel, 2005).
These policies consequently heralded a transformational change in the demographics of the higher
education student population and, with it, the expectations of a generation of young people for opportunities in employment and social mobility.
The figure below is taken from the HEFCE statistical report, January 2010, which set out the anticipated growth in student participation in higher education from the mid-1990s to 2010. Accordingly, the
HEFCE’s estimation for the September 2010 cohort was that there would be 239,000 entrants to higher
education. This would represent an increase of 77,000 in comparison to the 162,000 from the cohort
of 1994 / 95, an increase of nearly 50 per cent. However, the growth plan stalled when the changes to
public sector funding were announced on 22 June 2010 by the Coalition government, (Conservative
and Liberal Democrats), thereby reducing the number of student places allocated for funding (figure 1)
(Hefce Report 2014).
It is consequently not surprising that an Emeritus Professor of Education, of the Institute of Education in London has questioned what a university might be in the contemporary age (Barnett, 2009). The
answer to that question might be a range of providers, with research-intensive focused institutions at one
end of the spectrum and teaching-intensive colleges at the other. Interestingly, the post 1992 university
business schools had previously dominated the vocational segment of HE where the more traditional,
research-led universities had been less active. For example, Oxford University did not have a business
school until 1996, when it opened the Saïd Business School (SBS) (Marginson, 2006). The post-1992
universities were thereby the beneficiaries of the plan to widen opportunities for education to many more
people in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but consequently less resilient to the reversal of Government
funding policies during the second decade of the twenty-first century

Student Participation 1990s to 2015
By the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century the demographic profile of the undergraduate population had radically increased from previous times when study at a university had been the
prerogative of the few. The increasing participation of students in higher education was also financially

463


Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Figure 1. Trends in participation in Higher Education for England (HEFCE report)

beneficial to the UK economy. For example, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s
statistics for 2006 there were 330,060 non-UK domiciled students studying in British universities, including 106,230 European Union students and 223,830 non-EU students. Through their fees and living
expenses, these international students contributed substantially to the wealth of the UK (Huang, 2008;
The Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2006). Conversely, by 2015 for some providers, though not all,
student numbers had declined. Given that the declines were found to be with institutions that recruited
in medium to low entrance levels, which thereby widened participation, the reversal of fortunes would
impact on disproportionately on student opportunities and some of the HE providers (Hefce Report (2014).

Research Questions
During periods of change, the relationships between leaders and their academic colleagues can be placed
under pressure, for example during the reduction of government funding in the late 2000s onward. Such
transforming situations may consequently surface rifts in trust and expose leadership and followership
to new tensions (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2003; Harris, 2008).
The post-1992 business schools were therefore of research interest because they have continued
to be exposed to transforming internal and external forces of change. This thereby provided a context
wherein respondents could reflect upon what it means to be a leader and a follower within a transforming institutional environment.
The research is therefore based upon a sample of respondents who are working in business schools
that have experienced significant transformations in their working environment. Furthermore, the knowledge base of the participants produced some insightful dissonances between the respondents’ theoretical
knowledge of leadership and their reported experiential perceptions, regarding the leadership and followership in their business schools (Brookes, 2007; English, 2002).

464




Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

The researched focused on three research questions:
•
•
•

Within a transforming environment for post-1992 business schools what part, if any, does transformational leadership contribute?
What is the role of followers in a post-1992 business school context?
What are the perceptions of reality or rhetoric of distributed leadership?

LITERATURE REVIEW
Leadership and Followership in Post-1992
University Business Schools in England
By 2015 the changes in the economic environment for English universities that were discussed in the
introduction had reduced the student recruitment prospects for some though not all, mid-range post 1992
universities (Hefce Report 2014; Newman, 2010). Consequently, the university business school community needs to respond to the changed environment (Bennis & Toole, 2005). This requires a new kind
of leadership that is adaptive and inclusive. Within a complex knowledge worker based environment,
such as a university, it is also entirely possible that individuals might be both leaders and followers at
different times (Peck and Dickinson, 2009, p34). Furthermore, an academic might be thought of as a
leader in his / her field of research. Hence, academics can have significant influence upon the wider
community and leveraging and retaining that talent would benefit the business schools.

A Discussion of Transformational Leadership
Since the 1970s, the proposition that transformational leadership can change the fortunes of an organisation has retained popular appeal in the perceptions of some businesses the academics (Bass and Avolio,
1994; Bass and Riggio (2008) Boerner et al, 2007; Burns 1978; Burns 2003; Turnbull and Edwards,
2005; Vecchio et al, 2008). The continuing popularity of transformational leadership theory also has
resonances with notions of heroic leadership, which emphasises the personal characteristics of the individual leader to address situations (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Posner and Kouzes, 1993).
The perception that a few new appointments to senior posts within an organisation can resolve all
the organisational difficulties, with a swift reorganisation of work patterns and the displacement of

existing academics will be evaluated in the research discussion. However, any transformation plan will
need to respond to the complexity a knowledge worker environment, within a complex leader/ follower
context such as a university. Indeed, intellectual capital and personal engagement needs to be retained
and nurtured to support a growing knowledge based environment (Anderson et al 2005; Bisschoff &
Watts 2013; Bolden et al 2014).
The purpose of seeking leaders with transformational characteristics in HE stems from a perception
that leaders with transformational attributes have the: ‘potential to motivate the academic community to
respond effectively to change,’ (Morrill 2007, p13). Conversely, other studies have postulated that the
current period of transformational change in universities may render the use of one general theory of
leadership less compatible for addressing the complex problems facing the academic community (Bolden

465



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

et al 2012; Grint, 2008a). Furthermore, this research proposed that within an academic community there
might be a theory / practice gap, that is to say, dissonances between what might be theoretically regarded
as efficacious in transformational leadership and other leadership theories compared with the perceived
experiences of respondents’ to leadership in their business schools (Brookes, 2007; English, 2002).
The methodology of transformational leadership seeks to identify individual characteristics using
a multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Bass, 1999;
Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Vecchio, 2007). According to the theory of transformational
leadership, those who display the characteristics of ‘Four “I’s” (appendix 2) are more able to foster better
relationships with colleagues and encourage them to exert extra effort into their organisational endeavours
(Bass cited in Vecchio, 2007, p. 304). However, the assertion that transformational leadership can be
efficacious in all organisational contexts is worthy of some further critical evaluation, and in reference
to this research, within Higher Education (Yukl, 1999).
Furthermore, organisations can be less than predicable or rational, as observed by Albrow (1997,

p105) who has criticised the tendency in some management literature to over emphasise rationality in
organisational research: ‘…we have to address the hypostatisation of rational action in so much of organisational literature which confuses rational models with empirical reality.’ Yet it is engaging the talents
of the wider community of people who collectively form the core of university activity, in programme
management, researching and teaching which builds a successful learning environment. Hence, without
active followership, a strategic plan remains an abstract that may not be translated into practice. It is,
however, perhaps understandable that in uncertain and turbulent times within the HE sector the potential
panacea of a heroic leader has, for some, remained an attractive proposition (Currie et al, 2005).

THE ROLE OF FOLLOWERSHIP
Whilst the transformational academic literature discussed has tended to focus upon the character of the
leader person, other researchers have argued that the process of leadership necessarily requires the active
engagement of followers and an adaptive the leadership approach that respond to particular problems.
The first step in addressing a problem is therefore to identify what kind of problem it is. For example,
the model by Grint, (2008a, p.16) set out in Figure 2, provides a guide through which organisational
problems may be identified and addressed.
In Grint’s model the appropriate response to a problem therefore depends upon whether it is identified
as Critical, Tame or Wicked (Figure 2). Accordingly, it is reasonable to extrapolate from Grint’s model
that if a leader is inclined towards functioning in a preferred mode of leadership, that might not always be
helpful in leading complex organisations, such as a university within a rapidly transforming environment.
For example, Grint (2010, p.9) observed that:
‘Wicked Problems are inherently political in nature not scientific or ‘rational’ and progress is likely to
be via a negotiation of the common ground. For this [we] need to acquire Aristotle’s phronesis – the
Wisdom to acknowledge that the situation is not like any other, combined with the experience to recognize
that such Wicked Problems require a qualitatively different approach from Tame or Critical Problems.’
Indeed, according to Grint’s (2008, p16) work, ‘Wicked’ problems do not sit within the lexicon of
quantitative methods within functionalism, which proposes to measure performance by utilising ‘Tame’
466




Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Figure 2. Typology of Problems, Power and Authority
(Grint 2008a, p16)

interventions such as targets, metrics, risk registers or performance management controls. Nor is a ‘Critical’ response, such as replacing academics with new appointments, or closing teaching programmes,
likely to address an underlying ‘Wicked’ problem. Indeed, addressing a ‘Wicked’ problem as either ‘Tame’
or ‘Critical’ might exacerbate matters. Conversely, this does not devalue the use of ‘Tame’ or ‘Critical’
interventions to match ‘Tame’ or ‘Critical’ problems.
‘…since Wicked Problems are partly defined by the absence of an answer on the part of the leader then it
behoves the individual leader to engage the collective in an attempt to come to terms with the problem. In
other words, Wicked Problems require the transfer of authority from individual to collective because only
collective engagement can hope to address the problem. The uncertainty involved in Wicked Problems
imply that leadership, as I am defining it, is not a science but an art – the art of engaging a community
in facing up to complex collective problems.’ (Grint, 2010, p2).
Hence, a person in a leadership role would need to be sufficiently adaptive and interested in engaging
with colleagues collectively to resolve ‘Wicked’ problems. However, if a person has a preferred leadership approach, they may, albeit inadvertently, misinterpret the typology of the problem to suit their
preferred leadership or problem solving approach. For example, a person whose personal capabilities
tend to predispose them towards giving forthright directives may respond to a ‘wicked’ situation with a
Critical intervention, whilst the more bureaucratically inclined leader may seek to tame a ‘wicked’ situation through further controls, targets and reporting procedures. In common with the patterns of long
established bureaucracies in other environments, the post-1992 university bureaucracies can prevent
changes occurring by the use of reporting and control systems whilst: ‘placing their [own] performance
above reproach, holding subordinates accountable for results,’ (Gunn, 1995, p.28-40). The place of
followership in HE therefore requires further investigation and consideration regarding its function as

467



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

part of, not subordinate to, what might be described as the processes of leadership. For example, the
development, nurturing and retention of talent as indicated by the report of the Commission on the Future
of Management and Leadership (2014). The commission investigated leadership in the UK and identified one of the major challenges for organisations is to develop talent by retaining people and building
leaders from within their organisations.

Bureaucracy and Leadership in Post-1992 Business Schools
Administrative and external quantitative processes require time and attention, though whether leaders
distribute decisions or micro-manages is also a leadership choice (Alvesson and Sveningsson 2003;
Deem, 1998). Furthermore, questions regarding what work is esteemed in a particular institution also
require evaluation in a study of leadership. For it might transpire that what is esteemed by the institution
might not, necessarily, be what individual academics esteem or what is regarded externally as valuable to
their careers. For example, in the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education’s website (accessed 23rd
April 2010) the vision statement asserts the aspiration that: ‘Excellence in leadership in higher education
should attract the same esteem as excellence in research, teaching and learning.’ This is an interesting
statement supporting a parity of esteem for the differing aspects of academic work
A reorganisation of esteem and academic workloads is probably more likely to flourish in an organisational climate where a distributed leadership discussion has reflected upon and shaped where the
priorities for time investment should be (Spillane, 2006; Woods et al, 2004). Hence, a balance between
administration, consultancy, leadership, marketing, research and teaching could coalesce to serve the
collective interests of the university, providing that a balance could be designed in such a way as to serve
both the needs of the participants as well as the university’s strategic objectives. Furthermore, in reality,
the constituents are co-dependents in a single community and are consequently all in part responsible
for what happens to their community of scholars and students (Densten & Gray, 2001).
An alternative approach to leading in a complex higher education environment could be to build a
tripartite faculty, which contained people with differing primary focuses, such as college management,
research and teaching. Empowerment could thereby release individual/s potential to focus on collective
and individual areas of expertise (Graen & Uhl-Bien 1991; Turnbull & Edwards, 2005).
The tendency in post 1992 universities to emphasise administrative controls, places their focus onto
a functionalist statistical perception of objectivity. As such functionalism may be the elephant in the
business school common room. More critically, statistical measures may not surface issues which could

be pertinent to the formation of leader decisions (Albrow, 1997, p. 105). Also, Schwartz observed that
by concentrating on discussions amongst senior management peers, those at the top of organisations
may develop a perception of reality which may precipitate: ‘over centralisation of operational decision
making’ (Schwartz 1990, p.68). For example, Erickson (2010) has asked the community of scholars
for a more critical discussion and challenged the hegemony of audits and the pursuit of efficiency and
quality, in the absence of a debate about what academic leaders might mean when they ask for these to
be increased.
If academics uncritically accept the data from audits they might thereby be functioning in a world of
‘false consciousness,’ whereby what they perceived to be objectivity is not necessarily so (Mabey and
Finch-Lees, 2008, p. 128). It is also possible that during uncertain times of change, the comfort of the
control procedures might be, for some, possibly unconsciously, easier to accept than the alternative robust

468



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

re-evaluation of what it means to be a twenty-first century, university business school. Hence, some leaderships may live in: ‘constructions of reality that at best given an imperfect grasp’ of their environment,
a ‘psychic prison’ formed by an internally constructed and accepted reality (Morgan, 1997, p. 215-216).
Within a system, which usually conforms to tame solutions to problems, a safety first, risk-averse
approach to decision making may tend to preclude innovation and retain the apparent security of known
procedures and practices. For example, the research into leadership and administration in universities
by Gunn (1995) argued that some university bureaucracies prevented changes occurring by using the
systems for quality control and productivity: ‘placing their [own] performance above reproach while
holding subordinates accountable for results,’ (Gunn, 1995, pp. 28-40).
Hence, the proliferation of student evaluations, staff performance indicators, research assessments,
internal quality standard reviews, external quality visits, unit evaluations, annual programme reports, staff
competencies assessments and 360-degree peer reviews may circulate in a post 1992 business school, to
generate more email and documentary heat, than any critically evaluative light. Indeed, control systems

may actually diminish trust amongst colleagues and thereby be detrimental to the objectives they purport
to serve (O’Neill, 2002).
The research by Bareham (2004, p.25) supported the significance of interpersonal relationships in
academia, whereby the development of trust relationships is crucial to the establishment of agreement of
purpose in a business school. The paper went further to argue that trust is a prerequisite to bring about
change in academic environments, in which Bareham listed four key areas:
‘Credibility, trust, management expertise and people management’ (Bareham, 2004, p.26). Conversely
it is probable that significant levels of trust are less likely to flourish in overly controlling, bureaucratically hierarchical leadership cultures.

POWER AND CONFLICT IN BUSINESS SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
A university department is, in common with other organisational situations, likely to experience internal
and external forces for change (Lewin, 1951; Nieto, 2014). Also, there may be tensions in interpersonal
interactions between leaders and followers, arising from a multiplicity of issues including interpersonal
relationship tensions and possibly intrusive micromanagement. Further tensions may arise from inside
the business school and the university hierarchy, as well as ambiguities regarding what work is esteemed,
insecurities produced by change in university policies and or governmental funding.
For the post-1992 universities, internal tensions might be exacerbated by changes to research assessments, which might focus a larger proportion of funding with the research-intensive universities,
and new teaching quality assessments. When these factors are considered in conjunction with possible
role ambiguities, disruptions and unanticipated changes, any of the aforementioned factors may blur an
institution’s clarity of mission and purpose and erode the trust in leadership. The research into higher
education by Bolden et al, (2008) studied a cross section of universities in England, Wales and Scotland.
The paper provided research evidence via semi-structured face-to-face interviews within universities,
and included academics from several different departments. The paper thereby provided a valuable study
and demonstrated that UK higher education is experiencing a continuing period of transformation.
The university business schools have a rich source of academic knowledge upon which to draw in
matters of leadership. If leadership theories and models are presented as efficacious to practice for the
wider organisational community, it would seem reasonable that they also have relevance and application
469


Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

to the leadership of the business schools too. For example, reflective organisational self-awareness could
provide a valuable contribution to the formation of policies. For Erickson (2010), educational leaders
ought therefore to be asking questions inside their institutions such as:
•
•
•

What is it like to be a…?
Why do social groups A and B not socialise with each other?
What does ‘name calling’ say about what staff believe about their university?

Hence, the collaboration or disunity of colleagues will influence what leaders can achieve and to
what extent the various constituencies – administration, consultancy, marketing, research, and teaching
– function together within the business school.

Distributed and Blended Leadership within Post-1992 University Context
The possibility of distributing leadership responsibilities within educational organisations is a movement,
which has accumulated research interest and advocates in the educational and leadership research community (Bolden et a,l 2014; Collinson & Collinson, 2006; Spillane, 2006; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008).
However, it is possible that there would be resistance to such change from the formal bureaucracies,
which tend to hold onto the control of resources and thereby centres of power, control and influence
(Chreim, 2014; Lumby, 2013; Macfarlane, 2014).
Blended leadership could, it is argued, provide an approach which is empathetic to learning, knowledge based communities. For example, according to Jones, et al (2014, p. 419):
‘The conceptual framework for blended leadership is premised on the notion of administrative management operating in the professional space, intellectual leadership operating in the academic space and
an agreed mix of both these approaches operating within the overlap (third space). This conceptual
framework for blended leadership builds on the research outcomes of recent empirical research into a
distributed leadership.’
The approach advocated by Jones, et al (2014) to leadership concurs with the research conducted

with twenty-six respondents by Bolden et al (2014), which explored academics working as citizens of a
community instead of the institutional roles such as employee, manager or senior manager.
Hence, questions regarding how leadership is organised, are relevant to this research because within
knowledge-based organisations such as a university, it is very likely that differing perceptions will exist
as to what should be progressed and how it may be implemented. Different voices will offer differing
senses and interpretations of the same circumstances containing: ‘multiple versions of reality,’ (Mabey
and Finch-Lees 2008, p13). Furthermore, where a business school is being reorganised, the possibilities for instability generated by some of the transforming interventions may also change perceptions
of belonging and purpose. As such there may be a heightened potential for interpersonal dissonances,
arising from conflicting interests and aspirations.
Interestingly, the research by Fuller et al, (2013) indicated that distributed leadership was not being
employed as much as might be expected in by recent research. Any dissonances surfaced by the research
between the respondents’ awareness of distributed leadership theories and their perceptions of reality in
practice within their business schools are evaluated in the discussion (Geertz, 1973; Ponterotto, 2006).
470



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Research Strategy
The literature reviews surfaced opportunities for new research, which focuses on one subset of universities, instead of the whole sector.

Constructivist Discourse
Constructivist ontology is appropriate to this research context, wherein there are multiple realities, as
constructed by academics experiencing leadership within a working environment, which is undergoing
transforming changes (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000a; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000b; Thorpe, 2008; Thorpe
et al 2011).
The research indicated that in a complex knowledge based environment such as a university, there was
likely to be no single predominant objective reality of leadership or followership. Hence, the research
focus was from a constructivist perspective. A new framework was also constructed to view the discourses

in the context of universities. This is based upon the earlier work of (Mabey & Finch-Lees, 2008).
Dialogic Discourse

Respondents asked to tell their stories of how they
interpret their business school context.
The stories exposed the respondents’ iconography of leadership and followership in their institution. Stories
as respondents’ folklore of what leadership and followership look like in their business school context

Critical Discourse
Tensions that may exist between leaders and followers, domination, resistance or compliance, insubordination. Control, exposed as the exercise of power. Organisational politics. Respondents’ perspectives
of how management control functions. Respondents’’ “false” consciousness, regarding leadership or
followership within their business school context.

Constructivist Discourse
No single predominant objective reality of leader or follower within a business school. Elements of collective sense making. Individuals form interpretations of leaders or followers in their business school
context. Respondents’ interpretations of their leadership context.

Functionalist Discourse
Functionalist influences upon the organisational context. Positivist epistemological focus as to what
counts as knowledge. Ascendency of numerical data as the measure of performance. Notions of managerial control. Functionalism within the leadership lexicon of Business schools.

471



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

The Sample Set: Selection Criteria and Sampling Rationale
The research focused on a set of respondents from three post-1992 university business schools as a basis
for gathering a set of respondent interviews. The sample was constructed to include respondents from

different leadership and followership positions to include Deans, Professors, Programme Directors and
Lecturers within the three cases studied (Cassell and Symon, 2004, p. 207). The focus of the study was
in surfacing similarities of perceptions within groups of academics across the different business schools.
Accordingly, the twenty respondents were not selected as a definitive of the business schools they work
in. Nor is the research intended to extrapolate generalisable data for the post 1992 universities. It was
however interested in the perceptions of reality which respondents shared and the similarities in testimonies of respondents in similar role positions, but working in three business schools (Mabey, 2013;
Macdonell 1987).
The university business schools were selected from the list of post 1992 universities (appendix 1).
The selection process for the cases avoided universities, which were at the bottom of the league tables,
where major contextual issues such as finance or quality standards could be precipitating major changes
or emergency interventions to address issues such as financial crisis or a failing quality standards problem.
This would place such universities in situations wherein actions could be required to address critical
situations (see Figure 2, Grint 2008). However, the three selected business schools were experiencing
some reduction in student numbers and consequently funding, as indicated in the report the Hefce Report
(2014). This could thereby create some interesting situations for leadership and followership to address.
Two of the cases were selected because they had experienced multiple reorganisations and changes
of Deans. These universities thereby offered the possibility of interviewing respondents who were experiencing leadership and followership in a rapidly transforming change environment. Thereby with a
potential to present complex leadership and followership situations as defined by Grint’s (2008) model
in figure 2 as a ‘wicked situation’. The rationale for selecting the third case was that the Dean had been
in post for a longer period and there had been fewer transforming changes to the business school. This
set of respondents might thereby offer perceptions from a more stable institutional context.
The process of selecting and then approaching universities to participate with the research was an
interesting learning journey in itself and took several months (Orr and Bennett, 2009). The information
on the research and interview questions was provided to potential participants with an overview of what
to expect if they agreed to participate with the research. In a number of cases the Deans subsequently
declined to take part in the research. However, one of the Dean’s, who did agree to allow his /her faculty
to take part in the research, cited the quality the research plan as the reason for agreeing to the participation (Dean B). So, on balance the preparations were useful and helped people to decide whether or not
they would like to engage with the research. For the purposes of confidentiality, the Deans were asked
to allow access via email to members of their faculty, though they had no knowledge of who would be
contacted.

For anonymity names and places have been removed. Each case study was labelled anonymously,
respectively, Case A, Case B and Case C. and corresponding codes for respondents (Appendix 5).

Thick Description
The term ‘thick description’ has been promulgated in contemporary qualitative research by the work of
Geertz (1973), though he acknowledged the origins of the concept to Ryle (1949). According to Geertz
472



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

(1973, p. 9), when a researcher presents his or her findings they may transfer their own interpretations
onto the words of the respondents. To counterbalance this, Geertz (1973) has argued that it would be
beneficial to provide the readers with a ‘thick description’ of the organisational context/s within which
the research has been conducted, hence, providing the reader with the context in which the respondents
are expressing their thoughts. Ponterotto (2006) also commented that the term context refers to the working environment in which the respondents have been interviewed.
The findings surfaced many evocative images and emotional testimonies by academics in the case
studied business schools, and are presented in a thick description. ‘Thick description evokes emotionality
and self-feelings. In thick description, the voices, feelings, actions, and meanings of interacting individuals are heard’ (Denzin 1989, p. 83). This concurs with the approach articulated by Holloway (1997, p.
154) whereby: ‘This type of [thick] description aims to give readers a sense of the emotions, thoughts
and perceptions that research participant’s experience.’

Research Design and Analysis
The research design utilised case-study strategy (Denzin and Lincoln 2000a; Denzin and Lincoln 2000b;
Yin, 1994a; 1994b). The research was also sensitive to the multiple and differing perceptions of respondents. For example, Janesick (cited in Denzin and Lincoln, 2003, p. 67): ‘… recognises the many facets
of any given approach to the social world. The image of the crystal replaces that of the land surveyor
and the triangle’. The crystal metaphor was also used in the work of Richardson in Denzin and Lincoln
(2000) who supported viewing each respondent’s perceptions as part of a more multifaceted approach
to researching complex environments where both external and internal influences may be at work.

The case-study approach facilitated the collection of rich data and thereby drew upon the, ‘context
from which the interviewee is perceiving the world’ (Yin 1994a, p. 57). This approach is also supported
by Hartley (cited in Cassell and Symon, 2004 p. 323) in recognising that: ‘The case-study is particularly
suited to research questions which require detailed understanding of social or organizational processes
because of the rich data collected in context.’

Constant Comparison
The process of reviewing the interviews began by listening to the transcripts for over a year and constantly
comparing each respondent’s comments, observations and stories with the others. By listening to the
recordings and reading and re-reading the transcripts the respondents’ voices began to surface patterns
of similar behaviours, contextual observations, stories and critical evaluations. For example, people in
similar roles who did not know each other and were unaware of where the other cases studies were cited
were sharing similar experiences (Boeije 2002; Tesch 1990).
Even in the early stages of reviewing the transcripts a sense of saturation was emerging. The tone of
expressions, the anxiety caused by job insecurity and the frustration of not being heard or valued were
palpable in the recordings. The respondents’ voices therefore provided a rich narration of their contextual experiences and observations on transformational leadership, followership and the distribution of
leadership.
In Tesch (1990) the author sets out a number of approaches for organising qualitative data ranging
from what she describes as positivistic structures at one polarity to an unstructured reflection at the

473



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

other where the researcher reflects upon what s/he has gathered from the research. The approach in this
thesis broadly sits within what Tesch described as:
‘The comprehension of the meaning of text or action:
a. through the discovery of themes

b. through interpretation’
Accordingly, Tesch (1990) advises researchers to: ‘Divide the text into segments, and then sort these
segments into groups.’ (Tesch (1990 p114). In this research the respondents’ transcripts were initially
organised into similar leadership / followership sets in each business school. The sets were then subdivided across the three cases so that people in similar roles could be compared. Thereby the research
was able to compare testimony from sets of people who were viewing their particular business school
from the perspective of a broadly similar leadership / followership perspective.
The process of continuous comparative reviews led to the ‘discovery of themes’ which are set out in
the findings (Tesch (1990 p114). Accordingly, the emergent themes were surfaced from the voices of
what respondents reported as their experiences of leadership and followership and distributed leadership. The paper by Boeije (2002, p 408) on constant comparative method advises researchers that there
is ‘no prescription or procedure for identifying exactly which comparisons’ to select. Indeed, Boeije
(2002) encourages researchers to put their experience, knowledge and talents to reflective purpose in
their deliberations and consideration of how to approach their choices. What emerged were patterns of
consensus or dissensions about life in a post 1992 university business school reflected in the respondents’
felt experiences of leadership in their organisational contexts (Boeije 2002; Tesch 1990).

The Template Codes
The design of the codes template was informed by the work of King in Cassell and Symon (2004, pp.
257-270). The template provides a list of codes, which were constructed in order to thematically organise
and thereby subsequently analyse the textual data, which has been collected for the primary research (appendix 3: The template codes). The template codes list was originally longer and a code was connected
to each interview question and for each literature review subheading. An iterative approach was adopted
in reviewing the transcripts and a more focused coding list emerged to allow the voices of respondents
to be heard in a more concise and coherent narrative.

Emerging Themes
For the purposes of accessibility and subsequent analysis, the findings were organised under themes.
One of the outcomes to surface from the research is the comparatively similar perspectives that the respondents expressed when in a similar role, even when working in different universities. Accordingly, in
the findings the post holders across the three university business schools are clustered as: sets for Deans;
Heads of Department; Professors (who are not Deans); Programme Directors and Principal Lecturers;
Senior Lecturers and Lecturers.
The respondents’ answers and reflections will subsequently be considered through a thematic comparative analysis with the existing literature on transformational leadership, distributed leadership and

474



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

followership. Additionally, Burgoyne and James (2006 p. 309) also found that the reflective experiences
of both leaders and followers enriched the depth of respondents’ answers so that what emerged from an
interview was ‘a theory of leadership in use.’
The research employed an inductive questioning methodological approach, building upon previous
qualitative research studies into leadership (Zikmund, 1994). This approach thereby benefits from the
foundation of earlier work, whilst seeking to gather new research from academics regarding their experiences and perceptions of leadership and their perceived realities of leadership in practice. For example,
in the work of Burgoyne and James (2003) and Gabriel and Griffiths in Cassell and Symon (2004) the
authors indicated that there is a richness of material to be collected by qualitative studies of respondents’
perceptions regarding the realities of leadership in practice. The inclusion of leadership stories, as proposed by Gabriel and Griffiths in Cassell and Symon (2004, p.114), also encouraged respondents to tell
of how leadership works in their organisation, what kinds of leaders are well regarded or not, and who
tends to be asked to serve as a leader.

Research Ethics
The research followed the University of Birmingham’s ethics committee requirements and those standards set out by the British Sociological Association provides guidelines on the conduct of academic
research (appendix 4) and (Kervin,1992).
The BSA recommends the use of a documented consent form, which should inform the respondents
of the terms of the research, its purpose and agreement that what they say may not be published without
consent. As part of writing a textbook on Human Resource Management, this author produced a consent
form based upon the BSA guidelines which has since been adopt by several universities for their students
to use in research projects (Nieto, 2006).

FINDINGS
Introduction

This section provides a concise summary of the primary research, supported by a selection of the respondents’ observations and examples of their leadership experiences (Cassell and Symon, 2004). The aim
has been to give the reader a concise sense of the respondents’ voices and their experiences of leadership
in the business schools (Geertz 1973). The reported experiences surfaced some interesting dissonances
between leadership theories, as discussed in the literature review, and the respondents’ experiences of
leadership in their post-1992 university business schools (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000a; Denzin and Lincoln,
2000b; Thorpe 2008; Winter 2009). Additionally, the interviews surfaced a background context, which
was predominantly functionalist, with limited indications of transformational leadership or distributed
leadership. The reported leadership problem solving strategies appeared to address new situations as a
tame or critical problem (2008a) with limited collegiate consultation, producing consequential disengagements in leader/ follower engagement.

475



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Themes Emerging from the Findings
The research surfaced three emerging themes. This follows the approached recommended by Cassell
and Symon (2004, p. 267) to provide: ‘themes, selecting illustrative quotes, producing a coherent ‘story’
of the findings.’
The three themes, which emerged from the research were:
•
•
•

Transforming leadership in a change context
Instability jeopardising the possibility of followership
Non-distribution of leadership

Theme 1: Transforming Leadership in a Change Context

One of the most experienced senior managers interviewed (Dean C Previous) perception was that there
were significant limitations to leadership within the business school and dysfunctional senior management/ academic relationships. For example, instead of transformational leadership, s/he described the
university’s leadership as autocratic.
Respondent: ‘They’re [Pro-Vice Chancellors] the ‘consiglieri’ to use the Mafia terminology. They’re
the people who sort out the detail that the VC hasn’t got time for.’ (Dean C Previous)
Dean C3 Previous also reported that s/he has met with difficult leadership situations in several post1992 university business schools. Similarly, his/ her successor observed that:
‘A lot of it [decisions] does come down to the VC’ (Dean C2 Acting). Furthermore, the third new
Dean, also commented upon the short-term influence of Deans: ‘I think as a new dean you probably have
six or nine months when people really listen to you because you’re the new person’ (Dean C1 Current).
By way of comparison, the Dean (Dean A1 Current) in different case study was selected for the
research because s/he had been in post for several years. Nevertheless, this longer serving Dean also
observed that Deans in Business Schools did not remain in post for enough time to be in a position to
formulate and implement beneficial transformational changes.
Respondent: ‘I don’t think Deans stay in post very long in any university, certainly not in business
schools anyway … there are things that you can’t actually, you don’t know how to do [for a few years].’
Dean A1 Current also reported that there is both a lack of interest by academics in management
positions and that academia does not produce many people who can or want to be leaders. S/he cited a
propensity for post-1992 universities to be: ‘process driven’ and ‘bureaucratic’.
Dean B1 also commented upon the style of academic leadership.
Respondent: ‘If we refer back to the [transformational, transactional] model I would class the [university
leadership] style as transactional.’

476



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Other respondents reported regular changes to management and a consequential absence of consistent
vision and strategy predicating against successful transformational leadership.

For example, Professor B1 observed that policies and structure were changed almost annually. The
consequential instability meant that the business school was in a constant state of flux.
Professor B1: ‘I think one of the problems has been lack of the constant structure over the time,
problems especially academic leadership where it’s changed very frequently and where policies have
changed almost annually towards staff.’
The Programme Director A1 who observed that: ‘[Sighs] We’ve had different leaders, i.e. different
Deans come in … with very different styles and that does have an effect.’
Furthermore, the Senior Lecturer B1 reported that Deans ‘… come in, adopt some wild and wonderful strategy…then they jump ship when it all goes pear-shaped and we’re left with the aftermath, that
is the general feeling.’
An absence of engagement with leadership was commonly reported.

Theme 2: Instability Jeopardising the Possibility of Followership
In this part of the findings the respondents reported their sense of the organisational and personal consequences to followership of instability, leadership and strategy changes.
Dean C3 Previous observed that in his/her view, all of the business schools are in a transforming
context of instability.
Respondent: ‘Very few business school deans now are in a different context, you’ve got a very radically
changing environment, be it private or public sector school, post-’92 or pre-’92 and everybody’s facing
enormous change agendas. And I always describe [being a Dean] like riding a tiger backwards, it’s
very fierce, it goes very fast, you don’t know where it’s going and you can’t get off and I felt that’s just
the university.’
The simile likening the role of Dean in a post-1992 business school to: ‘riding a tiger backwards’
conveys a frightened lack of personal control over his/her contextual environment. This evokes a context
in which Dean C Previous did not see himself / herself as a leader. Instead, his / her perception of reality
is one in which s/he has no sense of control of the direction, policies and actions to be implemented.
The respondent Dean C2 Acting also observed that some business schools have become dysfunctional.
Respondent: ‘Oh, I think several people [Deans] would talk about dysfunctionality in their business
schools or universities.’
The respondents commented upon the disruptions to students’ studies as their colleagues were put
through the process of redundancy, restructuring, reorganising and job reappraisal.
The disturbances to the stability and security of employees degraded the learning and teaching environment. The reported causes of these failures appeared to be the self-inflicted outcomes of the style of

leadership, the short termism of decision-making and regular reorganizational upheavals.
In the case of Dean B1 Current, s/he offered some indications of a distributed leadership approach,
which thereby encouraged followership.

477



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Respondent: ‘Well I’d like to think that my style is a reasonable consultative one, I need to work through
persuasion, through consultation.’
The Dean’s comments indicated that s/he is trying to change the leadership of his/ her numerous
predecessors.
Respondent: ‘There had been numerous previous incumbents in this role [of Dean].’
So very much a lack of stability, a lack of clear strategy, lack of clear direction,
and I have to say some very indifferent quality [Deans] managers, the degree of incompetence was
extraordinary.’
It is interesting to note that in the perception of the current incumbent, that some of the his/ her predecessors were extraordinarily incompetent. Furthermore, a similar viewpoint was expressed by academics
that had worked with those Deans. It appeared that according to the respondents in that business school,
either the people who could lead were not applying for the posts, or not being selected. Alternatively,
it may be that the pressures placed upon those Deans to reorganise, restructure and remove colleagues,
placed them in untenably difficult leadership situations.
The recurrent restructuring was reported to be destabilising the Business Schools and disengaging
the academics.

Theme 3: Non-Distribution of Leadership
Dean A1 Current reflected upon the non-distribution of leadership. For example, internal promotions
are less likely than external appointments. His/ her observations are similar to other respondents who
also commented that there is a lack of promotions from within a business school.

Respondent: ‘I think also it’s terribly tough to be promoted internally, I mean, it can be ruthless being
promoted internally and I often think about that myself, I don’t think, had I been in this institution I would
have been promoted to my job [Dean]. Because I was an external candidate, gave me an advantage’
(Dean A1 Current).
The policy of selecting staff primarily because they have a PhD or research publications (for positions
wherein the job role is not primarily to research) was reported by several respondents, including Deans,
Professors and Lecturers, as an impediment to selecting teaching and management staff. Dean B 1 Current, expressed frustration about ‘constraints that are placed upon us’, which impose the requirement
to employ staff with PhDs. This indicates that s/he is not formulating policy, but instead being required
to implement decisions, which are created outside the business school.
Respondent: ‘[policy is decided by] the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice Chancellor, the Chief
Operating Officer, the Director of Finance and the Vice-Chancellor himself’.

478



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Furthermore, Dean A1 Current reflected on the short tenure of Deans and how that might influence
a Dean’s behaviour: ‘Some people have the slash and burn approach, where they just go away and do
something very dramatic and then run away before everything, all the pieces fall back down’ [laughs].
In a context wherein tenure is insecure, the pressures to have something new on their CVs to offer the
next employer may place pressures upon incumbents to make changes for which the medium to longer
term implications have not been evaluated. Indeed, they may not have even correctly identified what type
of problem they are aiming to address (Grint, 2008a). For example, whilst the need to improve student
satisfaction levels was also noted in the B case, the Dean did not think the imposed policy to address
the issue was fit for purpose.
Respondent: ‘We talk a lot about the student experience and we’re always very concerned about the
NSS, the National Student Survey, but it’s one of the great paradoxes I suppose of a university in that
actually we promote people for research. So there’s a great mismatch in managing an institution like

this in that the rewards don’t necessarily promote the appropriate behaviours.’
The H of D C1 reflected that distributed leadership was more rhetoric than reality.
Respondent: ‘[That is] I think a fairly managerialist sector.’
Respondent: ‘Although there’s a lot of discussion about, [distributed leadership] I think there’s some
degree of rhetoric about autonomy and if you like distributed leadership, I think the reality is much less
than the rhetoric would have you believe.’
Principle Lecturer A1 also reported that s/he was told to follow instructions rather than participate
in decision making.
Respondent: ‘[The] vice-chancellor, deans, senior management within the business school, course directors [make the decisions] and each time the message is coming down, ‘this is decided, just get on with
it’. (Principle Lecturer A1)

Focus Group
Participant 2: ‘In terms of classical management styles of leadership, what we experienced was autocratic.’
Participant 1: ‘Now since leaving this university I, have worked at lots of other universities, often at the
same time, and so what I will say to you is, though we’re talking about [B case-study], this does seem
to be a trademark – post-1992.’
The respondent’s subsequent experiences of working in other post-1992 universities are that they are
led in a similar manner to the B case. Accordingly, the respondent’s perspective is that there are systemic
issues in leadership in the post- 1992 university business schools.

479



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The research developed a new framework to review discourses in a university context, which was adapted
from the work of Mabey, and Finch-Lees’ (2008). Accordingly, the discussion studied the respondents’

perceptions of reality, their stories and critical observations. The respondents’ testimonies indicated
that their work environment were functionalist. The analysis of the findings has identified contributions
to our knowledge of leadership and followership within knowledge based environments (Bolden et al,
2012; Fuller et al, 2013; Gabriel 2000; Mabey, 2013).
The findings surfaced three themes in relation to the research questions. Accordingly, the first theme,
analysed transformational leadership in a changing context which addressed the question: Within a transforming environment for post-1992 business schools what part, if any, does transformational leadership
contribute? The research also surfaced organisational instabilities which were impeding followership,
so the emergent theme focused on the instabilities which were jeopardising the possibility of followership, in answer to the research question: What is the role of followers in a post-1992 business school
context? The third emergent theme reflected upon the significant gap between the reported absence of
distributed leadership and the research question: ‘To explore perceptions of reality or rhetoric of distributed leadership.’
The respondent’s interviews indicated that they perceived their environment to be functionalist. So,
functionalism was the background elephant in the business schools.
The respondents’ provided frank and sometimes provocative examples of leadership dysfunctionality
and supplied a rich source of personal reflections and stories as to what it is like to be a leader, follower
or sometimes both, within a post-1992 university business school (Peck & Dickinson, 2009 p. 34). The
presentational strategy here is therefore to view leadership and followership through the prism of the
respondents’ stories and observations and to evaluate their perceptions in relation to the literature review
chapters (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000a; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000b). The critical discussion, which thereby
emerged provided new insights into the leadership of knowledgeable workers within rapidly changing
organisational contexts such as the post-1992 university business schools (Bolden et al, 2014; Nicholson
2014; Porter & Mclaughlin, 2006).
In each case study the respondents reported that restructuring had been imposed with little by way of
meaningful consultation. This was particularly so in what respondents reported in the B and C cases. The
respondents also reported a consequential sense of insecurity and instabilities, which had impacted upon
their leadership and followership relationships. Concurrent with the reported transforming work environment, the respondents also reported an absence of senior leadership with transformational characteristics
to engage followership (Bass & Riggio, 2008; Collinson & Collinson, 2006; Koen & Bitzer, 2010).

Transforming Leadership in a Change Context
The post-1992 University business schools have experienced transforming changes (Hefce Report 2014;
Morgan & Newman, 2010). However, the research indicated a new contribution to our knowledge in that

those changes were more rapid and unsettling to academics in business schools studied than generally
reported in the literature. One Dean went even further to observe that the radical changes went beyond
the Post 1992 universities and are impacting upon other HEI sectors whether private, post-’92, or pre-’92.
480



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

The respondent’s observations support the proposition that the transformative changes and consequential
organisational instabilities indicated a significant dilemma for both leadership and followership regarding
how people might respond to a context of continuing instability (Collinson, 2014).
According to Grint (2008, p16) in such circumstances the unknown nature of the transformational
changes is better addressed as a ‘wicked situation’. However, the respondents reported that the predominant approaches they were experiencing were a combination of bureaucracy and hierarchical control
(Alvesson & Sveningsson 2003).
The model by Grint (2008, p16), (Figure 2) provides a framework for reflecting upon three differing typologies of problems, power and authority in organisations. Hence, for a ‘Wicked’ situation, the
approach is to, ‘ask questions’, for ‘Tame’ situation it is to ‘organise a process’ and for ‘Critical’ to
‘provide answers’ (p16). It was therefore interesting to observe that respondents reported a tendency for
senior managers to adopt interventions which, when viewed through Grint’s (2008a, p16) descriptors,
were ‘Tame’ or ‘Critical’ responses to organisational situations. Yet, the situations complex structural
and people management issues which the respondents’ described, such as the redundancy of academics,
the regular replacement of Deans and other senior post holders, would sit more comfortably within what
Grint’s model (2008 p16) identified as a ‘Wicked’ problem.
Furthermore, the respondents’ reported perceptions of leadership surfaced an apparent tendency
for senior managers, albeit unconsciously, to misinterpret the typology of a problem where it might be
‘Wicked’ by responding to it with a combination of interventions which sit in the ‘Tame’ to ‘organise a
process’ or ‘Critical’ to ‘provide answers’ (2008 p16). Consequently, a reported predisposition for ‘Tame’
or ‘Critical’ problem solutions, which sit more comfortably with functionalism may have become part
of their business schools’ contextual behaviour (Geertz 1973). Yet, Tame’ or ‘Critical’ interventions,
which are suitable when applied to the appropriate situations, are insufficiently adaptive or consultative

to meet ‘wicked’ challenges (Grint 2008, p16; Clarke and Butcher 2009).
Complex problems (wicked) tend to have interpersonal and organisational political dimensions,
which are likely to be exacerbated by being ignored. For example, respondents in each of the three cases
complained that they were not included in the decision-making processes. Additionally, some to the
respondents’ perception of the changes was that they did not benefit their community of students and
academics (Bolden et al 2014). This concurs with Grint’s (2010, p9) observations that:
‘Wicked Problems are inherently political in nature not scientific or ‘rational’ and progress is likely to be
via a negotiation. For this [we] need to acquire Aristotle’s phronesis – the Wisdom to acknowledge that
the situation is not like any other, combined with the experience to recognize that such Wicked Problems
require a qualitatively different approach from Tame or Critical Problems.’
For example, the Dean in the A case reflected that talented academics often felt discouraged from
seeking management appointments. A certain amount of processes and procedures are, of course, part of
any HEI operation. However, the Dean criticised the post-’92 institutions for their tendency to be more
process driven and not promoting talent academics (Bolden et al 2014; Commission on the future of
management and leadership 2014; Fuller et al 2013; Grint, 2014; Mabey, et al 2012; Macfarlane, 2014).

481



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Perceptions of Reality: Riding a Tiger Backwards
A respondent used the following metaphors to describe his/ her life in a post-1992 university business
school:
Dean C Previous: ‘[It is] like riding a tiger backwards, it’s very fierce, it goes very fast, you don’t know
where it’s going and you can’t get off and I felt that’s just the university’.
The Dean’s perception of reality presented an image of an organisation wherein s/he reports an
absence of any sense of personal influence within a context of constant, unpredictable and fierce challenges and directional changes. The words ‘tiger’, ‘very fierce’ ‘goes very fast’ and ‘can’t get off’ also
communicated the sense of organisational forces upon which the Dean has no control or influence.

Interestingly, a programme leader from a different university shared a similar sentiment conveyed by
the following metaphor:
Former Programme Leader in the B case-study from the focus group: ‘[Working in the business school
was]… just like being in a washing machine the whole time, never knowing when anyone was going to
open the door.’
These respondents may have had leader titles, but neither felt that s/he had any control over events,
to actually take leadership actions. Furthermore, Dean A Present criticised the use of power to implement: ‘slash and burn’ policies. The reported evidence goes beyond what was reported by Peck and
Dickinson (2009, p. 60) whose work had observed indications of, ‘hierarchical / individualist’ leadership in universities.

Transformational Leadership: Practice and Theory
The literature emphasised the importance of employee engagement and respect for leadership where
an organisation is proceeding through transformational changes (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe,
2001; Bass, 1999; Bass and Riggio, 2008; Bass and Avolio, 1994; Bass and Avolio, 1990; Boerner et al,
2007; Turnbull and Edwards, 2005; Vecchio et al, 2008). It is worth noting here that the terms change
and transformation are linguistically value neutral; that is to say, such interventions may transpire to be
organisationally beneficial, neutral or negative.
The respondents in each of the case-studies reported significant theory and practice gaps; that is to
say, the respondents were experiencing major dissonances between what they theoretically understand to
be efficacious within transformational leadership theory and their experiences of leadership in context
(Brookes, 2007; English, 2002). For example, one of the focus group participants asserted that his / her
role was to follow without questioning the university management’s directives. The behaviours reported
by respondents indicated that some senior managers, had more confidence in their own abilities to select
Deans, Heads of Departments and other senior appointees, than the necessary competence, as evidenced
by the regular cycles of appointments, dismissals and restructuring reported by the respondents (Nieto
2014).

482




Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

The research also indicated that the popular transformational leadership belief that a new leader
can transform a university was not the reported experience of the respondents. However, with respect
to the tenets of transformational leadership, neither did the respondents report having leaders who
demonstrated transformational characteristics. The characteristics of transformational leadership, as
articulated by Bass and Riggio (2008, p. 15) are in Appendix 2. It is, however worthy of note that Dean
B Current was the outlying leader in the case-studies where respondents in the B case-study reported
that s/he had displayed characteristics of transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2008; Vecchio
et al, 2008). This Dean was reported to have begun engaging in a discourse with his / her colleagues to
form an agreed participative approach to the leadership and organisation of their business school. The
Dean’s sense of the valuing of colleagues shared similarities with Plato’s proposition that an educational
environment ought to inform behaviour and be of service to the community by ‘treating themselves and
their wards in a civilized fashion’ (Waterfield, 1993, p. 121). The context in which this was occurring
was within the B case-study, which had been subjected to restructuring, reorganizing and redundancies
by previous managements (Geertz, 1973). There was also a high level of staff turnover reported by other
B case-study respondents, which they attributed to the lack of internal promotions and several rounds
of restructuring and redundancies.

INSTABILITY JEOPARDISING THE POSSIBILITY OF FOLLOWERSHIP
Leadership Instability
The reported insecurities emanating from numerous leader changes, combined with several rounds of
redundancies, had reduced respondents’ sense of followership (Bush 2010; Collinson, 2006). Similarly,
when reflecting upon the interpersonal skills of a Dean (one of the previous incumbents), the H of Exec
Education B1 reported that the hierarchical managerial style of leadership produced organisational
instability and emotional distress for academic colleagues. S/he comprehensively criticised the lack of
concern for the well-being or the sensibilities of colleagues in the business school.

Leadership Jeopardising Followership
The respondents across the three cases criticised the autocratic style of leadership they were being

subjected to. This degraded their respect and willingness to engage with their universities and work as
engaged followers. This contradicts the work by Collinson on followership (Collinson, 2014; Collinson
& Collinson, 2006).
Conversely, it is possible that in some of the managers whom the respondents criticised were in a
state of false consciousness as described in the critical discourse (Mabey, 2013). Hence, they thought that
their actions were addressing issues as part of a solution; instead the respondents’ perceptions were that
the numerous restructurings were the major causes of problems. The published literature supports the
perspective that organisations benefit from management and leadership development, which is difficult to
build upon when people are being constantly reorganised and / or replaced (Mabey & Finch-Lees, 2008).

483



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

Non-Distribution of Leadership
The literature review identified considerable research interest in the application of distributed leadership
in educational environments (Bolden et al, 2014; Gronn, 2009; Nicholson, 2014; Macfarlane, 2011;
Spillane et al, 2004). This research therefore studied whether distributed leadership was part of the sensed
reality of the respondents in the post-1992 universities’ business schools studied.
The respondents indicated inherent contradictions between the aspirations for distributed, consultative
leadership and the bureaucratic controls and use of power, which they were experiencing. As such, the
research concurs with the literature in reporting that there are contextual barriers in the organisational
structures of post-1992 business schools towards empowering academic and distributing leadership
(Koen & Bitzer 2010; Lumby, 2013; Spillane, 2006).
The research findings supported the work of Bolden et al (2008) and Gronn (2006) in surfacing leadership behaviours, which were reported to negate the distribution of leadership. The respondents’ sensed
there was limited rhetorical lip-service to consultation, beyond the formal consultation processes required
by law for redundancies, reorganisations. The research thereby indicated a gap between distributed leader
behaviour in theory and the practices indicated by many of the respondents. This concurs with recent

work, such as Nicholson (2014) who has cautioned university leaders to reflect upon their positions
within the organisational context: ‘University leadership is not a personal fiefdom. As vice chancellor,
senior manager, chief administrator, lecturer or union rep you are part of a system’ (2014, p. 29).
The reported non-distribution of leadership thereby disenfranchised academics from the opportunity
to contribute because they were not allowed to participate in the decision-making processes of their
business schools. The respondents’ observations indicated an absence of staff development and talent
management in business schools and a “false consciousness” (critical discourse) that external appointees
were preferable to developing talent internally (Mabey, 2013). According to the report by the Commission on the Future of Management and Leadership (2014), one of the challenges for organisations is to
develop talent by retaining people and building leaders from within the organisations. The respondents’
reported here did not indicate that this was happening for them.
A new framework was developed, which builds upon the work of Mabey and Finch-Lees (2008) and
was used to view the research from a constructivist perspective.
The framework thereby focused the research upon the perceptions of reality as expressed by the
respondents. This provides a contribution of new and interesting insights into how the respondents’ perceive leadership and followership within the context of their business schools. For example, respondents
reported that the positional authority of managers is often applied in a manner which is not conducive
to a climate of inclusive, consultative engagement with their academic colleagues. This was reported
at a time when the respondents also observed repeated major changes which impacted upon their community, such as restructuring and redundancies.
Accordingly, the research has surfaced a need for a re-evaluation of what the problems might be in
the case studied business schools. This could be addressed by a reflective review which is formed around
the constructive inclusion and engagement of the academic community (Bolden et al 2008; Collinson
2014). However, the research also indicated that the retention of bureaucratic structures in the business
schools studied was impeding the possibility of developing more consultative leadership (Chreim, 2014;
Lumby, 2013).

484



Leadership and Followership in Post-1992 University Business Schools in England

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
A new framework was developed for discourse analysis, which was predominantly focused on a constructivist perspective. The framework thereby evaluated the perceptions of reality, as expressed by the
respondents. This provided a contribution of new and interesting insights into how the respondents’ perceive leadership and followership within the context of their business schools. For example, respondents
reported that the positional authority of managers is often applied in a manner, which is not conducive
to a climate of inclusive, consultative engagement with their academic colleagues. This was reported at
a time when the respondents also observed repeated major changes, which impacted upon their community, such as restructuring and redundancies.
Accordingly, the research has surfaced a need for a re-evaluation of what the problems might be in
the case studied business schools and beyond in the HE sector. This could be addressed by a reflective
review which is informed by constructive inclusion and engagement of the academic community (Bolden
et al 2008; Collinson 2014). However, the research indicated that the retention of bureaucratic structures
in the business schools studied was impeding the possibility of developing more consultative leadership
(Chreim, 2014; Lumby, 2013). The research thereby contributed to our knowledge of the challenges for
leadership and followership in fostering engagement and consultation within a context where unreconstructed centres of control may impede creative solutions to new and uncertain situations (Bolden, et al
2014; Chreim, 2014; Grint 2008; Jones, 2014).
The research indicated that the transformational leadership literature needs to be re-interpreted to
address the leadership deficits; to be specific, to build upon the applied analysis in this research by exploring with academics what it means to a leader in a transforming higher educational context and how
they need to change their leadership approach to meet those challenges.
For example, a blended approach, which realigns the focus of leadership and followership toward
building a community, rather than the functionalist preoccupation with managing employees and hierarchy, could address some of the organisational issues, reported in the findings (Bolden et al 2014).
Consequently, followership is much less evident than that which is presented in the literature. The
low levels of reported engagement and followership contribute to our knowledge of the interconnectivity
between followership and leadership. The research also contributes to our understanding of the challenges of serving constructively as a follower within a context that may be hierarchical and organised in
a manner which does not encourage or support inclusive in decision making.
The challenges for HE and changes reported by the Hefce Report (2014), are likely to be exacerbated
by the introduction of more controls and data reporting systems, reorganisations and redundancies.
Accordingly, a change in management practice is required to address complex problems with new interventions to such ‘wicked situations’ (Grint 2008, p16). For example, a more inclusive leadership is
required, which nurtures and retains academic talent and actively encourages engagement in decisions
by the academic community, and not just the managers and resource gatekeepers.
The recurrent observations by the respondents’ supports the observation that people with leadership
capabilities are either not applying for leadership posts or not being selected. Furthermore, some of

the respondents’ perceptions, regarding the formulation of leadership responsibilities and bureaucracy
contribute to making such posts an unattractive career choice.
The selection process for managers was generally criticised by respondents at all levels as being unfit
for purpose. Furthermore, many of the respondents’ perceptions, including some of the Deans, were that
external applicants are more likely to be selected instead of promoting current Faculty academic members.
485